by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright January 23, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

roving that he's on a different planet, Vice President Dick Cheney insists that there's “overwhelming evidence” of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror organization. With Democratic candidates, especially former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, accusing the White House of exaggerating the Iraqi threat, Cheney fired back, justifying the war. While toppling the Taliban and going after Al Qaeda after Sept. 11 was one of Bush's crowning achievements, there remains considerable doubt about his Iraq policy. Over 500 deaths and 2,200 injuries now raise concerns about whether the costs outweigh the benefits. Cheney contends that two trailers found after the war were mobile biological weapons labs, despite retractions by David Kay, the chief U.S. weapons inspector and author of a definitive report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

      Before U.S. intelligence was properly vetted, the White House claimed Saddam was dangerously close to producing atomic bombs. Last year's State-of-the-Union speech incorporated unconfirmed reports from British intelligence about Saddam attempt to buy Yellowcake uranium from Niger. Other reports surfaced about Iraq's attempt to purchase “high tensile aluminum tubes,” used in centrifuges for enriching uranium. High-ranking CIA officials—possibly director George J. Tenet himself—could not verify such stories. In the wake of 9/11, without definitive info, the nation—including members of Congress—gave the White House the benefit of the doubt. Tomahawk Cruise missiles were launched March 20, not to “democratize” Iraq but to de-fang Saddam's alleged arsenal of WMD. No one then talked about “transforming the Middle East”—only neutralizing a “gathering” threat.

      Cheney's recent remarks can only be interpreted in the context of election-year antics. Every other senior administration official—including President Bush—has recanted any connection between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein. “There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government,” Cheney told National Public Radio, sticking with his pre-Iraq war talking points. “Overwhelming” is not the word characterizing what, if any, link Saddam had to Al Qaeda. “I am very confident that there was an established relationship there,” giving the unmistakable impression that Bin Laden and Hussein were coconspirators. Cheney's remarks were on different page from Secretary of State Colin L. Powell who indicated that he had “not seen a smoking-gun, concrete evidence” regarding a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

      Cheney's remarks dissemble the truth by speaking in broad generalities like “connection” or “relationship.” Of course Iraq had some “connection” or “relationship” with Bin Laden, but the link was not significant. When the head of Ansar al Islam—a radical group based in northern Iraq, loosely affiliated with Al Qaeda—was treated in Baghdad for cancer that doesn't mean the two worked together. Even Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is currently in U.S. custody, disavowed any working relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq, though he's hardly a source of credibility. “Nobody ever said Saddam directed Al Qaeda in attacks,” said Danielle Pletka, an associate of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, mirroring Cheney that a “relationship” existed. Calling Saddam's involvement with Al Qaeda a “relationship” is utterly meaningless.

      During last night's debate in Manchester, NH, Dean blasted his Democratic rivals Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass), John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Joe Lieberman for voting to go to war, holding them accountable for over 500 deaths and 2,200 injuries. Dean was most critical about Bush's flimsy case for war, especially exaggerated claims about weapons of mass destruction. “We made the right decision,” said Lieberman (D-Conn.), itemizing Saddam's atrocities and lending weight to Cheney's recent remarks. “We are safer with (former Iraqi president) Saddam Hussein in prison than in power,” not addressing Dean's key concern that U.S. national security was not threatened by Iraq. Yet Dean failed to say that Bush had other options for dealing with Saddam. Dean didn't argue with the ends, only the means by which Saddam was eventually toppled. With his campaign sinking, no one's listening.

      Cloistered in the White House, Cheney is regarded as the brains behind Bush's Iraq policy, completing a job begun as Secretary of Defense under the first Bush presidency. In Cheney's world, geopolitical forces take a backseat to multinational corporate opportunities. Whether he really believes Saddam had WMD or threatened U.S. national security is anyone's guess. Unlike his last go around with Bush-41, he's not counting on Dan Quale for reelection. It now falls on Cheney to loom tall tales to win another term. Despite latching on to initial false reports about mobile weapons labs, Cheney insists that the “jury is still out” on whether Iraq has banned weapons. It's too late now to admit he ignored the CIA's skepticism about Saddam's alleged stockpile of WMD. No matter how off-the-wall, showing consistency worked before and will no doubt work again.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.